6x2 GWR through station

[DK123GWR]

I am planning a GWR  through station with a scenic section of 1830mmx610mm (roughly 6ftx2ft). I am planning for a single line, two platforms, and a goods yard, and aiming for a small-medium town in Wiltshire feel. The main aim is to make it interesting to operate (which means shunting and having to think about it, preferably with the option to run a train through the station at the same time). Within the space, and secondary to the 'interesting to operate' requirement, I would also like the layout to be as credible as possible. One problem posed by this is that the goods yards at stations I have looked at are all offest from the station itself, while the space constraint here requires them to be alongside each other. Additionally, it seems that there are often two access points to the yard, usually one where most of the sidings converge and one on the other side of the goods shed. I cannot add a second access without losing a lot of potential platform on one side, so my plans so far have only featured one.* There must be a baseboard join within 1220mm of both ends. This will be a straight line and must be clear of points, ideally with the tracks crossing over it as straight as possible.

 

I have a couple of plans that I would invite feedback on, but it would also be good to hear about prototypes whose basic layout (or elements from it) might fit my constraints. Previously, I've found looking at a specific protoype and trying to capture the general arrangement (with changes to siding lengths, numbers, and purpose where needed) is a reasonably good way of designing a layout, so its a route I'd happily go down again.

 

Plan A:

This was is an evolution of an initial sketch made while I was working out what sort of layout I wanted but before conducting much research. The top line leaving the scene on the right hand side is for a headshunt, the other lines leaving are the running line. The idea at the moment is:

A1: refuge/sorting siding

A2: mileage/coal siding

A3: platform (above, also serving A4) with end loading dock

A4: Platform (below, also serving A3)

A5: Cattle dock (above)

 

Plan B:

The goods yard here is based on the yard at the western end of Devizes (search for 'Station Road, Devizes' on this site to see old OS maps - this is based on the 2nd and 3rd editions). The lines leaving the scene are as per plan A. B5 is clearly a cattle dock with end loading on the prototype and B4 could be used as the headshunt for this. There is also another kickback siding from B4 in the 3rd edition map, possibly with a platform. I haven't included it in this version of the plan, but might do in future versions. The other lines at Devizes are all ground level, with one served by a crane (if I were to install one it would have to be on B2). B3 would likely be a mileage/coal siding, with B1 used to facilitate shunting.

 

*Naturally, writing down the problem led to immediately realising the obvious solution, so a quick re-work of B led to:

Plan C:

This is definitely not going to be the best layout for a two-access yard as its just a retrofit to the previous design. I'll do a proper plan with two access points when I get the chance (and it isn't so late). This approach loses more length from the (initially longer) bottom platform than from the top platform (as would be the case if the turnout to access the yard were inside the one dividing the platforms). I'm still not sure that I'd go for it over the slightly longer platforms but I'll make sure to give it a fair hearing by developing a few ideas first.

[Kris]

B would seem more likely than the the others, especially if you reverse the plan and make your double slip a single. This slip would give you the loop on the platform lines but not give access from the down line to the goods yard. The reasons for this is that the GWR, along with many early railway companies always did their best to avoid facing points. 

 

[DK123GWR]

52 minutes ago, Kris said:

B would seem more likely than the the others, especially if you reverse the plan and make your double slip a single. This slip would give you the loop on the platform lines but not give access from the down line to the goods yard. The reasons for this is that the GWR, along with many early railway companies always did their best to avoid facing points. 

 

For clarity, which are you calling the down line (I'm assuming the lower one, heading left, but I should have set that convention by labelling the diagrams). And how does this change remove any facing points? Unless I'm missing something (which is very much possible) there was one, which allowed trains in the Up platform to access either the headshunt or the mainline, and now there is one, allowing trains from mainline (at the other end) to enter either the Up platform or the yard.

EDIT: I've also lost the separate headshunt with this change, so can't shunt while leaving a train running around, which I like to do when operating on my own.

Edited June 28, 2023 by DK123GWR

[Harlequin]

Please show the rest of the layout (just roughly) and explain why the station has to be compressed into the tiny 6*2 area.

 

[Kris]

38 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

For clarity, which are you calling the down line (I'm assuming the lower one, heading left, but I should have set that convention by labelling the diagrams). And how does this change remove any facing points? Unless I'm missing something (which is very much possible) there was one, which allowed trains in the Up platform to access either the headshunt or the mainline, and now there is one, allowing trains from mainline (at the other end) to enter either the Up platform or the yard.

EDIT: I've also lost the separate headshunt with this change, so can't shunt while leaving a train running around, which I like to do when operating on my own.

From the plans I had assumed that you had a double track heading in on one side dropping to a single on the other, hence the removal of the facing point comment. I had not realised that the other line was a head shunt. 

[DK123GWR]

16 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Please show the rest of the layout (just roughly) and explain why the station has to be compressed into the tiny 6*2 area.

 

A 180 degree set-track curve will come off of each end to connect to the FY. The headshunt will run parallel to one of these. The layout can't be made longer because these curves need to fit into the room. I won't make it deeper because it's deep enough, I don't want to take up too much space, and that's the depth of a piece of wood, so its just a convenient cut off.

[Harlequin]

51 minutes ago, DK123GWR said:

A 180 degree set-track curve will come off of each end to connect to the FY. The headshunt will run parallel to one of these. The layout can't be made longer because these curves need to fit into the room. I won't make it deeper because it's deep enough, I don't want to take up too much space, and that's the depth of a piece of wood, so its just a convenient cut off.

But why can't you extend the station into the space outside one, or both, curves?

 

[DK123GWR]

3 hours ago, Harlequin said:

But why can't you extend the station into the space outside one, or both, curves?

 

The passenger station needs to be on the main lines, so platforms and pointwork need to fit into that length. On the left I could gain 610mm if I only needed a single track curve at the other end (otherwise slightly less) providing that the join could still be within 1220mm of both ends (so that the scenic section can be in two pieces). There is barely any room to play with on the right because of a door.

[Flying Pig]

This is Devizes in 1951 on the Signalling Record Society site:

 

https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwb/S384.htm

 

and this is a simplified version which you might be able to adapt.  It is a single end of the station only, with the scenic break part way along the platform.

 

[DK123GWR]

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

and this is a simplified version which you might be able to adapt.  It is a single end of the station only, with the scenic break part way along the platform.

The thought had occurred but I dismissed it until you posted. It turns out I actually have room for the whole thing if I lose two sidings from the south (which is the top of your plan). Given that the interesting bit to operate will be the goods yard, I don't mind the ugly, curved, off-scene 'platforms' required to fit it into my room. The scenic section and fiddle yard will each be on two boards, with one for each of the curves (and a section cut out of the eastern yard board to accomodate it. Depicted in the centre is a rough sketch of a station extension which could be added if the layout were exhibited (which is likely to happen at some point). I've started to pass this plan around other stakeholders for feedback now

 

[Kris]

At the moment the goods shed can't be accessed by road vehicles for loading or unloading. Other than that the plan looks good. 

[RobinofLoxley]

One thing that might be useful to increase the individual section lengths within the plan would be to include 3 way turnouts in place of 2 single turnouts in sequence.

 

Below is an example, not a contribution to a track plan, its just an extrapolation from C. It looks to me as if some of the track sections are too short to be useful otherwise; dont know what happened as I 'posted' this yesterday and it promptly disappeared. A nod to @Schooner of this parish who has the knack of using 3-way turnouts in the right locations

Edited June 29, 2023 by RobinofLoxley

[Flying Pig]

12 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

The thought had occurred but I dismissed it until you posted. It turns out I actually have room for the whole thing if I lose two sidings from the south (which is the top of your plan). Given that the interesting bit to operate will be the goods yard, I don't mind the ugly, curved, off-scene 'platforms' required to fit it into my room. The scenic section and fiddle yard will each be on two boards, with one for each of the curves (and a section cut out of the eastern yard board to accomodate it. Depicted in the centre is a rough sketch of a station extension which could be added if the layout were exhibited (which is likely to happen at some point). I've started to pass this plan around other stakeholders for feedback now

 

 

A few comments:

 

1 - the short Y introduces a very unpleasant kink in the main line which you should really try to avoid;  if the track has to cross the board edge at a right angle, just continue it straight as per my crude sketch; this will give a more lifelike appearance and smoother running.

 

2 - as @Kris noted, your goods shed is inaccessible and imo the goods yard has too many sidings which is making it appear excessively cramped.  It is easy to suppose that the most interesting operation is achieved by forcing in the maximum number of points and sidings but I don't think that is necessarily the case.  I would certainly remove the siding immediately above the shed.

 

3 - this siding appears on the prototype but I'm not sure it was used for and I suspect it was not shunted by locomotive.  It's a candidate for removal, but it does look very distinctive.

 

[Schooner]

6'x2' gives you 12" on me and Devizes is one of my all-time faves, I'll try to have a little look later to see if I can find any suggestions

 

In the meantime, a v quick sketch:

Hopefully offering a suggestion or two for the sympathetic use of Peco (and a sneaky British Finescale kit) geometry. Track centres are all wider than necessary/Peco for proof of concept and my own convenience in drawing it up :)

 

FWIW I understand horse wagons to require roughly 20' to turn = 80mm = minimum clearance on the shed...but it'd look well with adjacent track ballasted to rail-top/inset.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

Yes, definitely too many sidings in that goods yard and it will appear very contrived rarher than attempting to actually look like a goods yard.  As there are no trap points I'd start by using the double slip at the connection to the goods shed road which would also elimiante a siding in the yard - kill two birds with one stone.

 

Take out the strange short siding labelled '3' by 'Flying Pig' and turn tound teh crossover at that end of teh goods shed road to face in the opposite direction.  That creatsa trrerap and makes g for more sensible working of the shed road.

 

Finally I'd extend theh short spur off the double slip to create an end loading dock at the back of the platform as it doesn't really serve any other useful purpose.

 

PS notong 'D Schooner's comment a 4 wheel horse drawn wagon can turn within its own length as could a Scammel Scarab artic  bit a bit more spaces for turning is always handy.

Edited June 29, 2023 by The Stationmaster
Add PS

[Schooner]

Sorry, forgot to mention my perpetual bias towards Victorian setups. @The Stationmaster is of course quite right...for what are, to me, 'late' vehicles with wheels below the wagon bed. 'Normal' (ie pretty universal until 1850ish) wagons tended to have large wheels outside the wagon body, and thus took a bit more management to get them around corners!

[Flying Pig]

5 hours ago, Schooner said:

6'x2' gives you 12" on me and Devizes is one of my all-time faves, I'll try to have a little look later to see if I can find any suggestions

 

In the meantime, a v quick sketch:

Hopefully offering a suggestion or two for the sympathetic use of Peco (and a sneaky British Finescale kit) geometry. Track centres are all wider than necessary/Peco for proof of concept and my own convenience in drawing it up :)

 

FWIW I understand horse wagons to require roughly 20' to turn = 80mm = minimum clearance on the shed...but it'd look well with adjacent track ballasted to rail-top/inset.

 

 

 

Sorry Schooner, but you've changed the layout significantly and added a separate running line which wasn't there in the prototype.  The sidings spring directly from the platform loop and there is no way to attach a headshunt or trap siding.  See below - the platform loop is marked blue and the locations of traps in red.  It is a very unusual plan by typical modeller standards.

 

Meanwhile see this page on the branch which has a useful map extract showing the proportions and layout of the station.  If the trainshed were retained it would form a very handy scenic break.

 

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/devizes-branch.html

 

[Schooner]

Er, nope, nothing changed, nothing added. As clearly stated, it was just a quick demo sketch of a possible goods yard layout in the scenic space available on a single-track roundy, as per @DK123GWR's latest :)

 

For maps why not just go to the source?

• 1885 survey
• 1889 revision
• 1922 revision

As above, and if it'd be of interest to the OP, I'll have a look at Devizes* (half-) in the available space... @DK123GWR, what is the (total) available space?!

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Schooner
*Though I note this is not a requirement, but a 'small Wiltshire town' is. On it :)

[DK123GWR]

There's a bit too much here to reply to point by point so I've tried to pick out the main themes:

1) Goods shedaccess - I've removed the siding immediately above the goods shed, and moved the other two closer together to create a suitable space.

2) The entrance from the west - I agree, it just didn't look right as it was. I've now redrawn it in a straighter form. Since the line will now leave the main board at an angle, the start of the ST curve can be further back. It also means that I gain space to address:

3) It's too cramped - As well as removing the siding above the goods shed, I've now been able to fan out the sidings in the lower left a little more, hopefully making it look a bit more natural.

4) Traps - aren't shown because they'll be dummies made from spare bits of rail.

 

I have also added labels, based on the prototype, for some of the sidings.